Global Journal of Human Social Science, F: Political Science, Volume 22 Issue 5

The subject matter has been complicated by the introduction of several variants of the termologies in internatioal law and relations. More eloborately, the ’seeking state recognition as diplomatic performance challenges the solid and reified accounts of recognition as an intentional act and opens up the possibility for exploring different agencies, stages and tactics involved in the practice of state recognition’ (Gëzim, 2021). Here distinctions between “ de facto recognition,” “diplomatic recognition” and “ de jure recognition” may be traced back to the secession of the Spanish provinces in South America in early 19th century. Like “recognition,” these terms can be given meaning only by establishing the intention of the authority using them within the factual and legal context of each case (Talmon, 2000, Crawford, 2006, 1977, Guilhot Nicolas, ed. 2011). Recognition is a unilateral act performed by the recognizing State’s government. It may be express or implicit. There is probably no other subject in the field of international law in which law and politics are more closely interwoven. However, that does not mean that recognition, in the sense of expressing an opinion on the legal status of an entity or authority, is a purely political act that is within the discretion of the recognizing State. Recognition, if unfounded in law (such as premature recognition) and backed by State activity, may constitute an internationally wrongful act which gives rise to State responsibility. Recognition of States must be distinguished from recognition of governments, each form having its own theories and practices (Talmon, 2000, Grant 1999, Hobach, Lefeber & Ribbelink 2007). But the term “recognition,” when used in the context of recognition of governments, rebels or de facto authorities in international law, may have several different meanings. It may indicate the recognizing State’s willingness to enter into official relations with a new group, or manifest its opinion on the legal status of the group, or both. Alternatively, recognition may simply be a means of expressing political support or approval (Talmon, 2011, Hobach, lefeber & Ribblink, 2007). Therefore, the recognition exchanged between States can take both implicit and explicit forms. By using the conduct of normal diplomacy, Statesmen might implicitly acknowledge others’ status. These practices include the extension of diplomatic privileges, like exemption from prosecution, the signing of treaties, and the direct provision of aid according to international law. Most Statesmen however, disagree that the extension of diplomatic privileges implies recognition when none has been formally granted. Indeed, Statesmen often explicitly reaffirm that recognition has not been extended when their behavior seems to imply otherwise (Herbst, 2000). Explicit formal recognition then, rather than implicit recognition, presents the most incontrovertible evidence of external recognition and international acceptance. Formal recognition can be granted by means of formal public statement or through formal documentation transmitted to the government of a new State. This method of recognition also activates a number of observable legal consequences, embassies are often established, members of diplomatic corps exchanged, etc. It is therefore also easily discernable when it has or has not occurred. In most cases, recognition is the unique purview of the executive and a State’s leader will publicly declare that recognition has been granted (Herbst, 2000, Weber, 2004, Neff 2005, Shaw, 2003,). There are two traditional doctrines that provide interpretations of when a de jure sovereign state should be recognized as a member of the international community. The declarative theory defines a state as a person in international law if it meets the following criteria; one, a defined territory; two, a permanent population; three, a government; and tour, a capacity to enter into relations with other states. According to declarative theory, an entity's statehood is independent of its recognition by other states. By contrast, the constitutive theory defines a state as a person of international law if it is recognised as such by another state that is already a member of the international community (Grant, 1999, Braumoeller, 2013). Several entities reference either or both doctrines in order to legitimise their claims to statehood. There are, for example, entities which meet the declarative criteria (with de facto complete or partial control over their claimed territory, a government and a permanent population), but their statehood is not recognised by one or more other states. Non-recognition is often a result of conflicts with other countries that claim those entities as integral parts of their territory. In other cases, two or more partially recognised entities may claim the same territorial area, with each of them de facto in control of a portion of it (as have been the cases of the Republic of China and People's Republic of China, and North and South Korea). Entities that are recognised by only a minority of the world's states usually reference the declarative doctrine to legitimise their claims (Grant, 1999, Neff 2005, Shaw 2003,). In many situations, international non-recognition is influenced by the presence of a foreign military force in the territory of the presumptive, self-declaring independent entity, so to make problematic the description of the country de facto status. The international community can judge this military presence too intrusive, reducing the entity to a puppet state where effective sovereignty is retained by the foreign power. Historical cases in this sense can be seen in Japanese-led Manchukuo or German-created Slovakia and Croatia before and during World War II. In 1996-case Loizidou vs. Turkey , the European Court of Human Rights judged Turkey for having exercised authority in the territory of Northern Cyprus (Grant, 1999). There are also entities which do not have control over any territory or do not unequivocally meet the declarative criteria for statehood but have been © 2022 Global Journals Volume XXII Issue V Version I 37 ( ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2022 F International Law and the Politics of Diplomatic Recognition of States and Government: Crtical Discuss